RAGHUNATH JEW THAKUR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution directed against the order No.22 passed on 19.5.1984 in Misc. appeal No. 16T of 1961 by the Additional District Magistrate (L.R), Midnapore affirming the order of the Settlement Officer, B Camp, Contai in 7A Case No.318 / 14T / 80. The property in question originally belonged to Upendra Nath Sahoo who made an endowment deed in the year 1950 in favour of Sri Sri Raghunath Jew Thakur and Sri Sri Chandi Thakurani and appointed his eldest son Barendra Nath Sahoo, a Sebait of the said deity with the direction that Seba Puja should be performed with the usufructs of the property and the same should not be utilised for personal use.

(2.) There was a proceeding under section 6(1) of the Estate Acquisition Act and the Revenue Officer after perusing the documents and other materials came to the finding on 12.6.1958 that the total land viz. 22.14 acres constituted a true and absolute debuttar and was entitled to get the benefits under section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. The names of the deities were recorded accordingly in the records of right but a fresh proceeding was started against Barendra Sahoo on 26.5.1980 thereby it was held by the then R.O. that it was not a public trust but a private trust and that its usufructs are being used by the Sebaits. In short it was a form of gift made by the original owner in favour of his sons to avoid the mischief of vesting. On being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Competent Authority on the grounds that the R.O should have held the deities to be separate raiyats and that he should have accepted the transfer of Sebaitship. The Competent Authority in a cryptic way cut short the matter by observing that the impugned order was justified and did not require to be interfered with in appeal.

(3.) On being aggrieved by such order the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed. It is pointed out at the first place that the deities were not served with any notice although the names of the deities were actually recorded as the owners of property. On perusal of the impugned order I find that actually notices were served on the Sebaits but notices ought to have been issued in the names of the deities specially in view of the fact that the earlier order passed by the R.O. in 1958 was passed in favour of the deities declaring thereby that the property in question was true and absolute debuttar property attracting the benefits under section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act. When by subsequent proceeding that order is going to be set at naught the principles of natural justice demand that such proceeding must be held in presence of those deities whose interests are going to be affected by the order in question. From this point of view the entire proceeding is bad in law and not maintainable. Regarding other points it is not necessary to enter into the same but it will be relevant to mention in this connection the earlier decisions on this point reported in 1996(2) CLJ and 1981(1) CLJ 231 where it has been clearly laid down that a deity being a juristic person should be treated as a raiyat for all purposes. Therefore that particular legal aspect ought to have been borne in mind by the R.O. at the time of disposing of the proceeding under section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.